• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bungie explains why Destiny 2 doesn't have dedicated servers

Sure, people working on the game did an analysis and determined it was not a worthy cost for the benefit.
They have the data. Why else would they choose an objectively inferior option?

money-animated-gif-13.gif
 
No, that it's a perfect example of why even with dedicated servers the netcode is still shit.

I see.

I can't argue that. I think the basis for many of us would stem from assuming the netcode/server quality would be too notch considering the billion dollar AAA nature of the game.

But I understand your point
 

Phuuz

Neo Member
Even if Destiny doesn't want it to be competitive on PC. P2P is gonna cause an massive backlash. We have no clue if it'll have any backdoors. But with Destiny 1 having 10Hz tickrate included with P2P. Just crazy to think.

Even Overwatch had double the tickrate when it launched (20Hz) which is now 60Hz. We've seen this from BF3 days with the tradekills and getting killed behind cover due to this. It's only going to be worse with P2P AND low tickrate.

Mind boggling, how they are going to be able to mess up the netcode AND servers circa 2017.

Almost every major FPS on PC now is above 60Hz tickrate. Unacceptable.
 

Armaros

Member
My head hurt reading that response. It's like reading a Trump transcript.

The true irony being, in his previous job, Luke would be the one asking the questions and getting the PR
person to stumble.

Live long enough to become the PR villian.
 

B.O.O.M

Member
Sure, people working on the game did an analysis and determined it was not a worthy cost for the benefit.
They have the data. Why else would they choose an objectively inferior option?

Because they know at the end of the day..despite potential issues ppl will buy the game regardless.

And you made a claim as if you were very sure about the so called data related decision yet doesn't sound like you really know anything.
 
And how do p2p increase cheating outside whats done on the ps4 with lagswitching and such? Elaborate.

P2P by nature opens up the door for server manipulation - a dedicated server doesn't allow IPs to be shared but many P2P implementations have been known to allow this, which opens up the door DDoS attacks and firewall manipulation. Game-state hacks could also be a possibility depending on their implementations - for the record, even larger game companies don't have great records with this. Lag hacks are also easier on P2P systems as well.

All of this CAN be worked around to some degree, but at certain costs. Added latency, loss of scalability, time, money, etc. It IS possible that they've worked out some revolutionary new p2p methodology. Destiny's original networking system was fairly impressive, maybe they've just decided to go all in with p2p technology.
 

mcrommert

Banned
I'm surprised people still go on about Dedicated Servers...

Besides the Battlefield games, what major current FPS's use them?

It would be quicker to list the FPS's that don't use them....i actually can't think of any but i know there are a few
 

Kalamari

Member
Destiny 2 PC with P2P will be like the wild west, should be exciting. Guns that shoot sparrows and that kind of stuff.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
P2P by nature opens up the door for server manipulation - a dedicated server doesn't allow IPs to be shared but many P2P implementations have been known to allow this, which opens up the door DDoS attacks and firewall manipulation. Game-state hacks could also be a possibility depending on their implementations - for the record, even larger game companies don't have great records with this. Lag hacks are also easier on P2P systems as well.

All of this CAN be worked around to some degree, but at certain costs. Added latency, loss of scalability, time, money, etc.

The question is not why P2P is bad, but why P2P on PC is worse than on PS4 in Destiny's case. You see, to my knowledge everything in the game is server side protected and checked so what you should be left with is the same manipulation possible that you can already do on the PS4 version (lag switch, ip sniffing and what-not).

Again, if someone know their backend, how come the current game is somehow immune with P2P interference but somehow the moment it hits PC suddenly its open season?
 

Dec

Member
Sure, people working on the game did an analysis and determined it was not a worthy cost for the benefit.
They have the data. Why else would they choose an objectively inferior option?

I'm not sure how you're confused? Pinging information off of players with consumer grade internet connections from whoever the fuck who knows ISP vs. players all sending and downloading data from a server farm built entirely for and optimized for sending and receiving information as quickly as possible with business grade internet.

In what world does option 1 offer a better experience? It isn't magic how online games work, interpolation has to make up for ping and when that interpolation is obvious to the player is when unfair things happen in the game. When the game has dedicated servers you can hopefully be sure that anytime that occurs, it's because of the players internet connection experiencing issues. When the game is P2P, there are more points where failure can happen and all of them may case an unfair experience to happen.

More points for failure = worse experience, even if you ignore the consistently lower pings dedicated servers will have.

It's obvious why they would choose an inferior option, if they do not have a dedicated server near someone and that persons data has to travel a long arduous journey back and forth, then dedicated servers may be worse than P2P for that region. To make dedicated servers work there has to be widespread servers for each region and it's expensive.

I don't doubt the cost is high, but people can still be disappointed. And P2P is worse.
 
And how do p2p increase cheating outside whats done on the ps4 with lagswitching and such? Elaborate.

For starters it makes wallhacks much easier. A dedicated server can hide unseen players from the client. In P2P at least one client is always going to know where every player is.

On PC it's also easier to do artificial lagswitching, giving the cheater more control. P2P is devastating for PC shooters.

It's bad for everybody, of course, and it's cheap enough nowadays that it's incredibly rare for a multiplayer shooter to not go dedicated. You basically get what, some Call of Duty games? (BLOPS3 is dedicated on PC, so it's not universal there.)
My head hurt reading that response. It's like reading a Trump transcript.
That's a great comparison.
 

joecanada

Member
I'm surprised people still go on about Dedicated Servers...

Besides the Battlefield games, what major current FPS's use them?

All the best ones that retain population the longest ? It's one rare objective measure of how good a game is ( performance)
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
For starters it makes wallhacks much easier. A dedicated server can hide unseen players from the client. In P2P at least one client is always going to know where every player is.

On PC it's also easier to do artificial lagswitching, giving the cheater more control. P2P is devastating for PC shooters.

That's a great comparison.

Wallhacks are done via engine information more so than connection information.

When a wallhack stops working at 100m its because the engine wont render it for the player 99.999% of the time.
 

Shifty

Member
Eesh. I missed out on the first game thanks to the lack of a PC release, and really don't feel like they're trying very hard to entice me here.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
How do server browsers even work these days? Serious question. Do most games that have them still let people have private servers or can you only browse dev servers? Or do they just matchmake you into a server?

I ask because I actually haven't done much online FPS gaming in a while. I checked Steam and found that CS:GO and TF2 still have private dedicated servers.
 
I'm not sure how you're confused? Pinging information off of players with consumer grade internet connections from whoever the fuck who knows ISP vs. players all sending and downloading data from a server farm built entirely for and optimized for sending and receiving information as quickly as possible with business grade internet.

In what world does option 1 offer a better experience? It isn't magic how online games work, interpolation has to make up for ping and when that interpolation is obvious to the player is when unfair things happen in the game. When the game has dedicated servers you can hopefully be sure that anytime that occurs, it's because of the players internet connection experiencing issues. When the game is P2P, there are more points where failure can happen and all of them may case an unfair experience to happen.

More points for failure = worse experience, even if you ignore the consistently lower pings dedicated servers will have.

It's obvious why they would choose an inferior option, if they do not have a dedicated server near someone and that persons data has to travel a long arduous journey back and forth, then dedicated servers may be worse than P2P for that region. To make dedicated servers work there has to be widespread servers for each region and it's expensive.

I don't doubt the cost is high, but people can still be disappointed. And P2P is worse.
I'm totally okay with people being disappointed. I'd be celebrating with you if they were doing it as it is objectively better to incorporate any amount of dedicated servers into the pool of players. I just have a reasonable expectation that it wasn't the right decision for this game and I think it's on the critics to demonstrate otherwise. No doubt there were critics of this decision internally as well. I also think that commenters on this tend to be hyperbolic and have unreasonable expectations about how their actual experience would be perceptively better with the alternative design. A good portion of this is psychological. People feel better knowing there are dedis.
 
Wallhacks are done via engine information more so than connection information.

When a wallhack stops working at 100m its because the engine wont render it for the player 99.999% of the time.

You seem to have missed the point. With dedicated servers it's easy to hide other players from the engine. It's much harder to do that with P2P, and you can never manage it in all situations (i.e., the host).
 
I'm totally okay with people being disappointed. I'd be celebrating with you if they were doing it as it is objectively better to incorporate any amount of dedicated servers into the pool of players. I just have a reasonable expectation that it wasn't the right decision for this game and I think it's on tbr critics to demonstrate otherwise. No doubt there were critics of this decision internally as well.

It wasn't the right decision to spend money to improve their customers experience?

Wow.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
You seem to have missed the point. With dedicated servers it's easy to hide other players from the engine. It's much harder to do that with P2P, and you can never manage it in all situations (i.e., the host).

I guess, but I was more thinking of thing like "youre able to add 500 guns to your inventory" cheats which is what it sounds like most people think of, because the sad truth is that there will always be wallhacks and aimbots and all you can really do is react to it. BattleEye is great at this.

I wont argue that I'd like Dedi servers more, but in the case of cheating I don't see it affecting much in this case.
 

B.O.O.M

Member
It wasn't the right decision to spend money to improve their customers experience?

Wow.

He is thinking corporate not consumer. From the corporation's pov, they know they will get the revenue regardless..this just minimizes the cost. From the consumer's pov it sucks. His earlier nonsense about them having data and this is a performance data related decision is most likely nonsense.
 
So you're telling me that putting a turd of software in a dedicated server fixes the issues?

I honestly can't believe they're not doing it then, it's that easy.

INTERVIEW IN OP said:
Mark Noseworthy: "We are not getting dedicated servers."

IGN: "RIP the dream. Why?"

*long pause of silence*

Luke Smith: "It's just not an investment that we made for Destiny 2



It's literally in the interview. I'm not making this stuff up for my post count.
 
The question is not why P2P is bad, but why P2P on PC is worse than on PS4 in Destiny's case. You see, to my knowledge everything in the game is server side protected and checked so what you should be left with is the same manipulation possible that you can already do on the PS4 version (lag switch, ip sniffing and what-not).

Again, if someone know their backend, how come the current game is somehow immune with P2P interference but somehow the moment it hits PC suddenly its open season?

You have more access to the PC than the PS4. You have direct access to the game files and architecture of the device you are running on from the start. Hacks are easier to make, easier to distribute, and easier to implement. The advantages and incentive of creating some form of cheat go up because they become more accessible to a wider audience and allowing you to more easily profit from them. If the multiplayer becomes more competitive and there is more incentive to win in Destiny 2, these factors become even larger.

What cheats were even popular in Destiny? Spamming people with PSN messages, DDoS, and lagswitching? That was about it.
 
It wasn't the right decision to spend money to improve their customers experience?

Wow.
You do realize the amount of money or time spent and what it purchases are decisions when making anything, right? What is it about video games that makes this concept so hard to understand?
 
Are you seriously defending Bungie/Activision's choice of not having dedicated servers after Destiny 1 being VERY affected by lag?
Yes. The lag sucked. I care about it more than most people. The people at Bungie played the game too. They know it sucked. Which is why they put resources towards improving it. Just because they didn't put the resources you feel are the best doesn't meant they don't care about making the best product they can with the time and money given to them. They do.
It definitely doesn't mean it was the best engineering or game design decision (both of which are ultimately business decisions when making a product or service for sale).
 
Yes. The lag sucked. I care about it more than most people. The people at Bungie played the game too. They know it sucked. Which is why they put resources towards improving it. Just because they didn't put the resources you wanted doesn't meant they don't care about making the best product they can with the time and money given to them. They do.

So you're implying they don't have the time, nor money, for dedicated servers?

Cmon man
 
So you're implying they don't have the time, nor money, for dedicated servers?

Cmon man
I'm not implying anything. I've stated it plainly and will do so again: they wouldn't have chosen an objectively worse option unless they determined the benefit of the better option wasn't worth the cost.


Forgive me if I don't necessarily trust the same developers responsible for the lag and desync in the original Destiny.
Go and sin no more.
 

jwhit28

Member
The last 5 or so years have really clouded any good memories I have of Bungie and Halo. They remind me of post Quake 3-pre Doom 4 id.
 
I'm not implying anything. I've stated it plainly and will do so again: they wouldn't have chosen an objectively worse option unless they determined the benefit of the better option wasn't worth the cost.

That's your opinion.

Companies cut costs despite the greater good of their customer base all thr time.

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. Wake up.
 
Top Bottom